resource management process strongly influence decision making in a way which strains even the best efforts of the most dedicated and seemingly rational practitioners.
As was seen, the decision-making and policy account described in this chapter provides a rather perplexing and challenging but nevertheless realistic platform upon which to build a new natural resource management paradigm. It suggests a rather problematic policy inertia, one dominated by conformism on the one hand and muddling through on the other. To be successful, then, policy makers must somehow cut through this complexity to build a public policy and industrial management regime that is both responsive to environmental impera- tives and mindful of the broad range of resource values that the public now clearly asks for. In this regard, the next chapter builds on the conceptual founda- tion introduced here to examine the intricacies and nuances of natural resource management. In combination, these chapters provide the theoretical and con- ceptual foundations for building a realistic conceptual and procedural framework for IREM which is expanded upon in following chapters.
Case Study
Its supporters tout it as a cornerstone of the government’s strategy to make electricity generation self-sufficient in the country and not reliant on imported power from Mexico or costly diesel-driven generators. The aim ultimately is to initiate socioeconomic development by reducing the cost of electricity and improving efficiency of the supply. On the surface, this seems a laudable and timely project, Belizeans already pay considerably more for electricity than many of their neighbours, and the current supply is often sporadic and unreliable. For some, however, the big question is not whether the project can fulfil its ambitious economic promise and help alleviate poverty, but rather if it can do so without irreversible and unreason- able impacts to the pristine environment.
When one begins to scratch below the surface of this initiative and its underlying policy-making influences, it becomes clear that a highly convoluted set of issues conspire to question whether this project is more about political and corporate power than about electrical power.
Background
Belize
Belize is a small country about the size of the State of New Hampshire, situated on the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula, Central America. Bounded to the north by Mexico and to the west and south by Guatemala, it has a multiethnic population of approximately 250,000.
The Yucatán region was once part of a proud ancient Mayan civilization that extended from the southern states of Mexico in the north to El Salvador in the west, and which reached its peak population aroundAD900 before rapidly declining. More recently, the area of Belize has experienced a turbulent colonial history, first being claimed by the Spanish as early as 1638 and then by British pirates in the 17th century and official colonization by the British in 1862, when the land became known as British Honduras. Since the mid-1980s, the country’s natural environment and ancient Mayan ruins have formed the basis of a rapidly expanding ecotourism industry. In 1981, Belize became an independent state within the Commonwealth, despite continued claims on its territory from Guatemala, a dispute that dates back to the 17th century and which has resurfaced periodically over the years.
The Chiquibul Forest Reserve and National Park
The Chiquibul Forest Reserve and National Park (CFR and NP) is a multifunctional extractive forest as well as a protected area in the Maya Mountains of Belize. It covers approximately 0.5 M ha and stands at an altitude of between 300 and 900 m above sea-level. The area, like much of Belize, contains numerous archaeological remains from the ancient Mayan civiliza- tion and includes the extensive ruins of Caracol and Nohoch Chen. Wildlife is abundant in the area, including many endangered and threatened species, such as scarlet macaws, jaguars, Baird’s tapir, Morelet’s crocodiles and ocelots, scarce in many other parts of Central America.
The 1900 mm of rainfall per year is unevenly distributed through the year, meaning that the dry months have virtually no rainfall at all. The complete profile of the Raspaculo and Macal watershed on the northern border of the CFR and NP therefore becomes a critical habitat for much of the wildlife during the dry season.
The proposed Chalillo Dam project
The proposed MRUSF will be located on the border between the Mountain Pine Ridge Forest (MPR) and the CFR and NP, some 12 km downstream of the confluence of the Macal and Raspaculo rivers. With a maximum depth of impounded water of approximately 35 m and a maximum surface reservoir of 9.5 km2, the resulting reservoir will extend 20 and 10 km upstream of both rivers, respectively (see Fig. 7.6).
Chalillo will supply water to the existing run-of-river dam at Mollejon, which produces 25.2 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Water releases from Chalillo will be timed to reach Mollejon at peak hours during the dry season to maximize electrical generation when it is most needed and at the same time generate approximately 7.3 MW itself through its own base turbine. The Mollejon Dam was built in 1994, and is owned and operated by Fortis Inc., a billion-dollar Canadian corporation that owns real estate, hotels and utilities as well as being the majority owner of Belize Electricity Limited (BEL) and BECOL. This dam has been beset with problems since its commissioning, is barely able to operate during the dry season and, consequently, has not been cost-efficient. According to Fortis, the Mollejon Dam generates only about 30% of Belize’s present electricity demand.
The Chalillo Region
The geology of the Chalillo Region within the CFR and NP is characterized by meta- sedimentary rock, granite and limestone karst topography. The karst that occurs throughout the area of reservoir impoundment is interspersed with a vast array of uncharted subterranean
Fig. 7.6. Map to show the proposed Chalillo Dam impoundment. Source: Mintyet al.
(2001).
caves and underground chambers. This rock type generally supports lime-loving broad- leaved, subtropical moist forests, whilst granite locations north of the river support the distinctive Caribbean pine flora on acidic soils of the MPR (see Fig. 7.7).
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Under the Belize Environmental Protection Act (BEPA), it is a requirement of the proponents of such a project to submit an EIA. AMEC, a British-based construction company with offices in Canada, was contracted to produce the five-volume EIA, which they completed for their client, BECOL, in August 2001. The EIA was then assessed by the National Environmental Appraisal Committee (NEAC), a Government-appointed committee. One of the many support- ing documents contained within the EIA was a wildlife impact assessment (Mintyet al., 2001) carried out by the Natural History Museum (NHM) of London. The report concludes:
That this area (to be flooded) is a rare and discrete floral floodplain habitat, classified as ‘riparian shrubland in hills’ (Meerman, 1999 in Mintyet al., 2001), which acts as both a conduit and critical habitat for resident and non-resident fauna and avifauna. The maintenance of this exceptional habitat relies on the flow of oxygenated water and severe but temporary seasonal flooding of the river system following intense rain. This habitat, which does not occur elsewhere in Belize, will suffer approximately 80% permanent inundation if the project proceeds as planned, a figure now supported by interpretation of satellite images.
Based on intensive field work and data collected over a 10-year period (Rogers and Sutton, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 2000 in Mintyet al., 2001), the report further concludes that:
the remoteness and strongly seasonal hydrodynamics of the Macal and Raspaculo Watershed make it one of the most biological rich and diverse regions remaining in Central America.
Fig. 7.7. The Chalillo Dam site. Photo by Glyn Bissix.
A seasonal shortage of food in the region for both herbivores and carnivores means that the relatively rich floodplain habitat becomes a critical seasonal food source for many species during the dry season. It is also a key staging post for many bird species migrating to and from North America; the watershed provides an important habitat for many endangered vertebrates species of international value.
The report continues that the construction of the dam would be likely to cause:
Significant and irreversible reduction of biological diversity in Belize, initially at the population level but potentially at the species level, some of the species affected being of international importance.
Fragmentation of the proposed Meso-American Biological Corridor, and
Rapid reduction in the already endangered population of Scarlet Macaw subspecies (Ara macao cyanoptera), leading to population inviability and probable eventual extirpation from Belize.
While AMEC did not completely hide the above findings of the NHM, they did relegate them to an Appendix and decided to publish only a ‘Draft’ version of the report, despite the Final Report being submitted by the NHM in good faith before the AMEC-imposed deadline.
AMEC further tried to discredit the report by stating that there were some ‘some errors in fact’ contained in the ‘Draft Report’, especially respecting the conservation status of certain wildlife species discussed (p. 15)’. The point of contention was with the scarlet macaw sub- speciesAra macao cyanoptera, which is not listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) website, althoughAra macaois, as only full species are listed.
In any event, the subspecies is considered by the IUCN Parrot Action Group as ‘Critically Endangered’. AMEC, as lead consultants, evidently failed to recognize or acknowledge this fact when passing judgement on the wildlife report.
In an attempt to find out why the NHM’s report was relegated to an Appendix and dis- missed rather than used as part of the decision-making calculation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), in an interview for theDisclosureprogramme, questioned the CEO of AMEC. He conceded in this interview for the first time that there will be environmental damage in building the dam, but claimed that the NHM ‘did not do what they were asked to’
in documenting that damage. Despite the concerns expressed by the NHM over biodiversity impact, the EIA received clearance in Belize by the NEAC in October 2001, a decision that was challenged in Belize’s highest tribunal.
The dam proponents
The Government of Belize (GOB)
In their election manifesto of 1998, the People’s United Party (PUP) identified agriculture and tourism as the twin pillars of the economy in Belize, and specifically committed the party to promote Belize as ‘an exciting ecotourism destination’. The PUP were elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2002, and have consistently supported construction of the dam in order to support the growth of tourism and agriculture, by bringing down the cost of electricity, thus facilitating socioeconomic development. Indeed, the GOB Prime Minister has stated in an interview with CBC that his government has an ‘understanding’ that very soon after construc- tion of the dam, prices will begin to drop. The GOB is a minority shareholder in BEL.
Belize Electricity Limited and Fortis, Inc.
Previously, the GOB operated the Belize Electricity Board (BEB), but electricity distribution was privatized in 1992 and in 1999 Fortis Inc. became the majority shareholder in BECOL and BEL, making them the monopoly provider and generator of electricity in Belize. In the Fortis
Project Summary, it is stated that one benefit among others of the Chalillo Dam ‘project will [be to] help Belize attain greater autonomy in its electricity sector by increasing its capacity to generate renewable, stably priced energy (p. 15)’. However, this was not corroborated in an interview with the CEO of Fortis by the CBCDisclosureprogramme, when he made it very clear that electricity prices would continue to rise after construction as a result of Fortis having to finance the new infrastructure.
The Belize Audubon Society (BAS)
The BAS represents one of the largest conservation groups in Belize and, as a result of funding from the European Community (EU), operates seven protected areas in Belize as co-managers with the GOB. Despite this ongoing relationship with government, this organization prides itself on its ideological autonomy. BAS openly reacted to criticism of being rather quiet on the Chalillo Dam issue in its August–September 2000 newsletter, when somewhat surprisingly – given its strong nature-conservation mandate – it endorsed the construction of the dam, refer- ring to its mission of balancing environmental and socioeconomic development concerns.
The dam opponents Official GOB opposition
In the Belize Assembly on 21 January 2002, the leader of the United Democratic Party (UDP), the official opposition, the Right Honourable Dean Barrow, stated his party’s opposition to the dam.
The Belize Zoo
The Belize Zoo has been a leading opponent of the dam’s construction. Supported by funding from the Wildlife Trust, teams from the Zoo have made numerous expeditions to both the Macal and Raspaculo rivers and the countless unnamed tributaries that are to be flooded.
Together they discovered previously unknown scarlet macaw nesting sites and have docu- mented the importance of the river system to this and other endangered species. The Director of the Belize Zoo is an American national.
Local journalist
A well-respected local journalist, writing for the Belizean newspaper, The Reporter, com- mented on the PUP´s propaganda media:
It is revealing but profoundly depressing that any party in government could hold the intelligence of its electorate in such low esteem that it would put forward these proposals as serious constitu- tional reform measures. There is no more classic illustration of this than the Chalillo dam debate with the full force of the government media focused on trying to discredit all or anyone who dares to question the folly of the original Mollejon dam or the continuing folly of Chalillo.
He added:
The technique of the government, through its media, is to color ANY critic of Chalillo as an inter- fering foreigner being paid from abroad. In other words, if you criticize the Chalillo Project you are somehow ‘unBelizean’, acting against the state.
The report continues
The Chalillo dam is NOT, as EXPERT after EXPERT has testified, either economically feasible, a potential source of cheap electricity or without environmental impact. It is this bunch of lies that
government keeps pushing that reveals exactly the extent of the fraud being perpetrated against the true interests of all Belizeans – even the as yet unborn, for they too will inherit the enormous burden of debt caused by the stupidity of placing hydro dams on a river which runs almost dry in the dry season and which, in some years, has hardly any rainfall at all. And of course the cost of the inevitable increase of pollution of both the Macal River and the Belize River is incalculable.
The Mollejon dam on the Macal River was built against all experts’ advice at the time. It was promoted and pushed through by our present minister in charge of finance. Chalillo is no more than a further affront to logic to try and prove that he was right and also because there is a lot of money in and around dams. The Vaca dam which follows Chalillo will be the same story, and by then Belizeans will have some $250,000,000 to $300,000,000 dollars to pay back over the next 30 years at an astronomical 12% to 15% interest rate – and they STILL won’t have cheap electricity, just a billion dollar debt!
Local NGOs
The Belize Ecotourism Association (BETA), through its Board of Directors, formally stated its position on the project in a press release dated 22 October 2002 stating:
The World Commission on Dams has issued a report that has brought international attention to the numerous downfalls of dams, pointing out that the mitigation factors have been largely unsuccess- ful. Nor do dams provide flood control, in reality increasing the devastation, as did the Patuca Dam in neighboring Honduras. We are deeply concerned that Fortis and BEL are misleading the public and our government with their claims of the benefits of Chalillo. With serious consideration, and using all of the information and resources at our disposal, we have come to the following conclusions:
There is insufficient data available to determine that the Chalillo Dam would be able to perform as projected. Given the inaccurate projections of the Mollejon Hydroelectric Project by the same consultants, we do not have confidence that the Chalillo Project will succeed in providing the additional power. A proposed third dam at Vaca Falls and the accompanying roads and infra- structure would further jeopardize the increasingly valuable ecotourism potential of the entire area.
International NGOs
One very well-resourced and influential USA-based environmental advocacy group, the Natural Resource Defence Council (NRDC), joined the fight in 1999, adding the Macal River to its list of ‘Biogems’ – environmentally critical regions threatened by development. The GOB-backed newspaper called the NRDC and opponents of the project ‘lawbreakers’ and
‘terrorists’. Responding, the famous Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, an environmental lawyer with NRDC, said: ‘This is one of the worst boondoggles I’ve ever seen in nearly two decades as an environmental lawyer, it will make a few Canadian businessmen wealthier and impoverish the people of Belize for a generation. This is globalization at its worst’. In addition, Probe Inter- national, a self-appointed watchdog of the Canadian government’s international development performance, exposed a seemingly cosy relationship between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and AMEC, the company responsible for the EIA. Over the years, CIDA has awarded AMEC several contracts worth in excess of Can$46million to support various engineering and environmental studies associated with hydroelectricity projects. In this case, contrary to the usual tenure of an EIA to provide a neutral assessment of the costs and benefits of the dam’s construction and operation, a rider was included within the EIA contract that encouraged AMEC to recommend construction.
More than a dozen advocacy groups in the USA, Canada and Belize organized a letter- writing campaign that delivered tens of thousands of opposition faxes and e-mails to Fortis,
with celebrities such as Harrison Ford lending their names to the cause. Harrison Ford in a letter to the CanadianGlobe and Mailnewspaper highlighted the connections:
Here’s how Fortis set it up: to prepare an environmental assessment to support Fortis’ dam, the Canadian government’s foreign aid arm, CIDA, hired AMEC, a multinational engineering company that also happens to be a major dam developer. CIDA cloaked its assessment of the dam in secrecy; no documents were made public and no public input was solicited. If that isn’t bad enough, Canadian taxpayers are footing the $250,000 bill. Fortis’ perfect environmental scheme hit a snag, however. AMEC subcontracted a piece of the job to the Natural History Museum of London. Unfortunately for Fortis, the Natural History Museum wasn’t prepared to mince words about the dam’s devastating effects on Belize’s wildlife. The Museum’s scathing report says that the dam would cause ‘significant and irreversible reduction of biological diversity’ and fragment the proposed MesoAmerican Biological Corridor – an international effort to maintain the connections between the few remaining forested areas of Central America.
Probe International and the NRDC say that people downstream from the dam would be threatened. According to the director of NRDC’s Biogems Programme, ‘Fortis’ geological studies state that the site is granite when it’s really sandstone and shale. The worst case scenario – the dam breaks, floods communities downstream and kills people. Fortis’ contract guarantees that they can sell the dam to the government for $1 without any liability.’
The office of IUCN-Meso-America reviewed the pertinent reports and bibliography and evaluated the general scope of the EIA. The interest of IUCN in this evaluation is based on the resolution adopted on 10 October 2000 by the World Conservation Congress, urging the developers of the project: ‘to conduct a fully transparent and participatory environmental impact assessment of the proposed hydroelectric facility . . .’ and to the Belizean NEAC ‘to follow and apply the laws of Belize on environment and environmental impact assessment on the proposed project, with special attention to participatory processes and consistent with the best international practices’.
Conclusion
On 10 June 2002, the Supreme Justice Court in Belize began hearings on two lawsuits filed by BACONGO, a coalition of Belizean environmental and business groups challenging the GOB’s approval of the US$30 million project. The suits charged that the project will destroy crucial habitat and raise electricity bills by passing construction costs to customers and that insufficient public consultations were given during the review of the EIA prior to NEAC’s decision to grant environmental clearance to the project. BACONGO attorney Young-Bar- row appeared before the Chief Justice to present an overview of the laws governing the approval of EIA by the Department of the Environment and the NEAC. Young-Barrow emphasized the importance of public consultation, a point expected to be of major significance in the course of the trial. Despite the fact that the approach road to the dam was already well under construction, the decision to build the dam could have been reversed by the Chief Justice and, even if the dam was built, the water storage facility need not necessarily be filled.
In December 2003, this case was before the Privy Council in London, UK, the highest court of appeal in the British Commonwealth. Regardless of how this case unfolds in this court of appeal, this case is fundamentally about policy power and really more about influence over fundamental natural resource policy decision making. It is a question of who has the power, who should have the power and who ultimately has the power to make the key decisions in this situation that clearly pits natural resource development against the interests of maintaining environmental quality.